Nagi v. People
Citations
- 2017 CO 12
- 389 P.3d 875
- 2017 WL 679088
Syllabus
Criminal Trials—Continuances—Speedy Trial. Defendant sought review of the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming his conviction and sentence for sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust. See People v. Nagi, 2014 COA 12, ___ P.3d ___. In addition to rejecting his challenge to the legality of his sentence, the Court of Appeals rejected defendant's assertion that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial, as prescribed by CRS § 18-1-405. Defendant had argued that the district court lacked sufficient grounds to justify ordering a competency evaluation, and that the period during which defendant was under observation or examination was therefore not properly excluded from the calculation of the time within which trial was statutorily required. With one member of the panel dissenting, the appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the evaluation, notwithstanding its reference to defendant's choice to proceed pro se as at least one of the reasons for questioning his competency, and that the evaluation period was therefore properly excluded and defendant's statutory speedy trial right was not violated.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting “wild accusations of collusion between his counsel and the prosecution” a factor indicating need for competency evaluation
- noting \wild accusations of collusion between his counsel and the prosecution\ a factor indicating need for competency evaluation
- affirming the trial judge had a \good faith basis\ to hold a competency hearing in light of defendant's questionable decision to represent himself in a case involving potential life sentence plus \wild accusations\ and other \aberrant behavior\
- affirming the trial judge had a “good faith basis” to hold a competency hearing in light of defendant’s questionable decision to represent himself in a case involving potential life sentence plus “wild accusations” and other “aberrant behavior”
- a defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel is intelligent if the defendant makes his choice “with eyes open to the consequences”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Coats, Marquez
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1975-06-30· cited 11,585×
- Dusky v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1960-04-18· cited 3,197×
- Oregon v. KennedySupreme Court· 1982-05-24· cited 2,097×
- Wheat v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1988-06-30· cited 1,962×
- Godinez v. MoranSupreme Court· 1993-06-24· cited 1,916×
- United States v. AldenSeventh Circuit· 2008-05-30· cited 119×
- Rodriguez v. District Court for the City & County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado· 1986-05-19· cited 89×
- People v. RomeroSupreme Court of Colorado· 1985-01-21· cited 84×
- People v. SteeleSupreme Court of Colorado· 1977-04-18· cited 39×
- In re People v. JonesSupreme Court of Colorado· 2015-04-06· cited 29×
- People v. DeasonSupreme Court of Colorado· 1983-10-17· cited 27×
- Hampton v. DIST. CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF JEFFERSONSupreme Court of Colorado· 1980-01-21· cited 23×
- People v. ArledgeSupreme Court of Colorado· 1997-05-19· cited 22×
- People v. FriscoSupreme Court of Colorado· 2005-09-12· cited 22×
- People v. CastroSupreme Court of Colorado· 1993-07-06· cited 15×
- Watson v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado· 1985-05-28· cited 13×
- People v. RunningbearSupreme Court of Colorado· 1988-04-11· cited 13×
- People v. DuncanSupreme Court of Colorado· 2001-09-10· cited 9×
- People v. NagiColorado Court of Appeals· 2014-02-13· cited 7×
- Cappelli v. Honorable DemlowColorado Court of Appeals· 1996-06-27· cited 6×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.